I don't really trust anybody to have a gun. However, if you are going to allow the kind of people who become cops, soldiers etc., to have guns, I don't see a reason why the average person shouldn't be able to have them too. Personal protection is a valid reason to be able own a gun, so I disagree with you there. I don't agree that the state should have a monopoly on weapons, nor should anybody who knows their history. I say this as somebody who has never owned a gun, nor shot one.

I don't know how allowing possession of firearms can make the world a safer place or increase personal security, because usually it's the outlaws and criminals who carries guns around, not the ordinary good civilians. I think all the firearms should be banned from the public altogether. For the hunters and people into the sports of shootings, an office where guns can be hired by licensed users will be a good enough solution. Do we need guns in our daily lives? Absolutely not. They can only create problems, so they should be banned.

I hate government as much as anyone but justifying gun ownership by mistrust of govt is misguided. it's a case of going with the lesser evil. you are not very likely to succeed challenging govt/law enforcement by whipping out your m16.

Absolutely.

Also, the usage of weapons by police and government agencies are strictly controlled by the government and not driven by personal interest. That doesn't guarantee 100% safety and fairness, of course, but more than 90% of times, that won't cause any trouble. less than 10% human mistake is just outside our control, and that is still trillion times better than the current state of free usage of firearms.

Make an extreme strict regulation to collect guns from the general public. If anyone's found to possess guns for any reasons, they can be persecuted and put into jail. Provide rewards for reporting gun possession by other people. Buy back the guns at a reasonable price. Provide chances to change the type of business to the gun dealers. I'm sure there are many more rules and plans you can add to these as solutions.

Every meat eater should have to go hunting one time. It'd get a lot of heads out the sand, people who pompously brag about "never firing a gun maaan," meanwhile these fat fucks are going to fast food chains every other day eating horribly abused animals, and not even enjoying it. Eating it out of convenience, or habit. Or wrapping bacon around everything, because it's silly, and the internet does it. Go hunting one time, you'll respect animals a lot more, and probably eat a lot less meat. And shut the fuck up about hunting rifles. Focus on psychos with AK's. That's my rant on the subject, focused at nobody in particular.

Spot on, if you eat meat and cant deal with the reality of animals being killed for food then you are doozy hypocrite.

Also, the usage of weapons by police and government agencies are strictly controlled by the government and not driven by personal interest. That doesn't guarantee 100% safety and fairness, of course, but more than 90% of times, that won't cause any trouble. less than 10% human mistake is just outside our control, and that is still trillion times better than the current state of free usage of firearms.

that's not true, and even if it was, it would be no comfort to put it mildly. gov't/police brutality is a FAR bigger US and global problem than school shootings.

I just don't think owning assault rifles or hand guns helps us solve that bigger problem, and it sure as hell exacerbates the random shootings problem.

Every meat eater should have to go hunting one time. It'd get a lot of heads out the sand, people who pompously brag about "never firing a gun maaan," meanwhile these fat fucks are going to fast food chains every other day eating horribly abused animals, and not even enjoying it. Eating it out of convenience, or habit. Or wrapping bacon around everything, because it's silly, and the internet does it. Go hunting one time, you'll respect animals a lot more, and probably eat a lot less meat. And shut the fuck up about hunting rifles. Focus on psychos with AK's. That's my rant on the subject, focused at nobody in particular.

I don't know how allowing possession of firearms can make the world a safer place or increase personal security, because usually it's the outlaws and criminals who carries guns around, not the ordinary good civilians. I think all the firearms should be banned from the public altogether. For the hunters and people into the sports of shootings, an office where guns can be hired by licensed users will be a good enough solution. Do we need guns in our daily lives? Absolutely not. They can only create problems, so they should be banned.

Do you have any statistics associated with your statement? What is the percentage of criminals carrying vs registered carriers? Additionally, to say that guns can only "create problems" is clearly false.

I hate government as much as anyone but justifying gun ownership by mistrust of govt is misguided. it's a case of going with the lesser evil. you are not very likely to succeed challenging govt/law enforcement by whipping out your m16.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but don't confuse that with actually being right. The reality is that the United States gained indepence through the use of weapons against the government. It was violent, it was brutal but it is what the people wanted.The right to bear arms and form a militia is based on the notion that people should hold their government in check and not the other way around. As to what the lesser evil is, well, that would really just depend on the particular situation.

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but don't confuse that with actually being right. The reality is that the United States gained indepence through the use of weapons against the government. It was violent, it was brutal but it is what the people wanted.The right to bear arms and form a militia is based on the notion that people should hold their government in check and not the other way around. As to what the lesser evil is, well, that would really just depend on the particular situation.

we now have electricity. another small difference is that today's government has cluster bombs and nuclear missiles at its disposal. good luck with that militia thing.

Right, because nukes are just the norm to handle conflict. 2013 will be remembered as the year that humanity outgrew revolution. It's also the year that any country that might be in conflict with the US decides to get rid of their guns, because they've become obsolete. You know... Cluster Bombs, nukes, and stuff.

Right, because nukes are just the norm to handle conflict. 2013 will be remembered as the year that humanity outgrew revolution. It's also the year that any country that might be in conflict with the US decides to get rid of their guns, because they've become obsolete. You know... Cluster Bombs, nukes, and stuff.

of course. not going along with this militia nonsense means we lie down and surrender.

weren't we talking about gun control laws in the US? but lol at any country taking on the US with handguns and assault rifles.

of course. not going along with this militia nonsense means we lie down and surrender.

weren't we talking about gun control laws in the US? but lol at any country taking on the US with handguns and assault rifles.

other than that, good post. I can see us making real progress here.

To clarify, I didn't say anything about a country "taking on the US with handguns and assault rifles". I was actually talking about situations in which the United States has invaded other countries and had to deal with fighting their citizens who were willing to lose their lives in an attempt to remove the US from their country. The United States could have just, as you suggested, used nuclear weapons but it doesn't even accomplish their goal, not to mention brings with it numerous other obvious problems. Using a nuclear weapons against your own people to deal with a revolution is pretty unlikely, not to mention nonsensical. You should never be so naive to think that things could not get worse, in any country on the planet. If people are desperate enough, hungry enough, etc and become resentful of the ruling class, history has shown us that revolutions are often not far behind.

To clarify for you, I was talking about gun laws in the United States. I was also referencing the most similar situation to a revolution, as it relates to citizens vs. a government military.

To clarify, I didn't say anything about a country "taking on the US with handguns and assault rifles". I was actually talking about situations in which the United States has invaded other countries and had to deal with fighting their citizens who were willing to lose their lives in an attempt to remove the US from their country. The United States could have just, as you suggested, used nuclear weapons but it doesn't even accomplish their goal, not to mention brings with it numerous other obvious problems. Using a nuclear weapons against your own people to deal with a revolution is pretty unlikely, not to mention nonsensical. You should never be so naive to think that things could not get worse, in any country on the planet. If people are desperate enough, hungry enough, etc and become resentful of the ruling class, history has shown us that revolutions are often not far behind.

To clarify for you, I was talking about gun laws in the United States. I was also referencing the most similar situation to a revolution, as it relates to citizens vs. a government military.

finally something sensical. let's talk recent history a little bit.

most of the revolutions in the last decade or two have been relatively non-violent. people became hungry enough, desperate enough, reached a critical mass, too big a mass for the government to imprison or gun down. and they won - governments were toppled, new consititutions set up (e.g., Argentina, Egypt). in many cases, significant changes were won through the electoral process (e.g., Venezuela, Bolivia).

in the US, "all" it would take would be for sufficient numbers of people to realize that the republicans and democrats were part of the same corporate- and finance-ruled system, and to vote for third parties. there are a number of excellent third party choices in the US and their election would instantly make things almost unimaginably better for the US and the world. THAT's something to try to attain, not stockpiling handguns for the big siege of the whitehouse.

when a government is determined to keep a people down, guns are not going to get you anywhere. where have they gotten the Palestinians? In Libya and Syria, the only reason armed "popular" (I use that very loosely here) insurrections succeeded (or might succeed in Syria's case) is that the insurgents received heavy-duty weapons from foreign governments. good luck toppling Assad with handguns and M16s.

I'm just scratching the surface here, this is a much deeper discussion, but the essence is that in the US, change can most surely be won through the electoral process. even peaceful protests like Occupy are getting nowhere because they don't have nearly that critical mass. we have to raise political awareness, not nonsense about the right to bear arms.

as another example, take the civil rights movement that vastly improved conditions for blacks in the US not so long ago. while that movement certainly had its militant wings, it succeeded because it had numbers, not guns.

edit: and guys like Malcolm X were militant for good reason. it wasn't because they were getting ready to storm the white house, they were defending themselves against what were basically white militias, another abuse of this right to bear arms absurdity

most of the revolutions in the last decade or two have been relatively non-violent. people became hungry enough, desperate enough, reached a critical mass, too big a mass for the government to imprison or gun down. and they won - governments were toppled, new consititutions set up (e.g., Argentina, Egypt). in many cases, significant changes were won through the electoral process (e.g., Venezuela, Bolivia).

in the US, "all" it would take would be for sufficient numbers of people to realize that the republicans and democrats were part of the same corporate- and finance-ruled system, and to vote for third parties. there are a number of excellent third party choices in the US and their election would instantly make things almost unimaginably better for the US and the world. THAT's something to try to attain, not stockpiling handguns for the big siege of the whitehouse.

when a government is determined to keep a people down, guns are not going to get you anywhere. where have they gotten the Palestinians? In Libya and Syria, the only reason armed "popular" (I use that very loosely here) insurrections succeeded (or might succeed in Syria's case) is that the insurgents received heavy-duty weapons from foreign governments. good luck toppling Assad with handguns and M16s.

I'm just scratching the surface here, this is a much deeper discussion, but the essence is that in the US, change can most surely be won through the electoral process. even peaceful protests like Occupy are getting nowhere because they don't have nearly that critical mass. we have to raise political awareness, not nonsense about the right to bear arms.

As has been the case from the beginning of this discussion, you are still failing to acknowledge how bad things could possibly get. Even if you contend that additional arms would be necessary, that still wouldn't negate the need for the types of arms that the populace currently has. Additionally, I never suggested that anybody should form a militia but anybody who knows history knows that sometimes violence is unavoidable in a conflict.. There are various scenarios in which peaceful revolution might not be sufficient.

As to the original issue, people don't need guns to commit mass murder. If somebody is determined enough, these pieces of shit like the shooter in Newtown can find other ways. This is more of a mental health issue, than it really is a gun issue. In general, it is a violent culture. There is a gun violence problem but how many of those guns are legally obtained anyway?

As has been the case from the beginning of this discussion, you are still failing to acknowledge how bad things could possibly get. Even if you contend that additional arms would be necessary, that still wouldn't negate the need for the types of arms that the populace currently has. Additionally, I never suggested that anybody should form a militia but anybody who knows history knows that sometimes violence is unavoidable in a conflict.. There are various scenarios in which peaceful revolution might not be sufficient.

As to the original issue, people don't need guns to commit mass murder. If somebody is determined enough, these pieces of shit like the shooter in Newtown can find other ways. This is more of a mental health issue, than it really is a gun issue. In general, it is a violent culture. There is a gun violence problem but how many of those guns are legally obtained anyway?

I really can't see how that's the case in the US. many other countries, yes, the US, no.

we'll agree to disagree, it's a minor disagreement anyway in the big scheme of things. interestingly, just as you're not a gun owner, I am far from a pacifist. I'm sure I would pull the trigger in a second if I had to, if I knew it would make a difference. I just think we have far better options for making things better than violence in this part of the world.

always good to exchange views, even if you're prolly one of those fags who wears his pants halfway down his ass.